The Kindle's first lit screen shows versatility, but also spots and many ads.

The Kindle, Amazon’s E Ink reader, will turn five years old in November. In the course of half a decade, the slab-shaped device captured the imagination (and dollars) of many book readers. Amazon has iterated on the Kindle’s design and function several times, adding keyboards, removing keyboards, sharpening the resolutions, and adding touchscreens. Amazon even went so far as to spin off the E Ink Kindle into a new line of LCD tablets, the Kindle Fire.

The focused interface and E Ink display of the Kindle has pleased many book lovers because it mimics the non-reflective quality of paper. But in the past, users complained that the Kindle doesn’t hold up to reading in dark rooms or indoors. Enter the Kindle Paperwhite—Amazon’s latest version of its E Ink line of Kindles. It comes with a lit screen, and we got our hands on it to see how it fares.

Things are pretty different in 2012 compared to the Kindle's introduction. More people are used to reading electronic books, and the tablet is becoming more of a home appliance than a novelty or luxury item. The availability of Android tablets, Kindle Fires, and iPads makes the decision to buy an e-reader more challenging. If an E Ink e-reader’s price is in the vicinity of a tablet’s, which gadget is the better buy? A Google Nexus 7 starts at $199, and a Kindle Fire costs $159. Compare those to the base price for a Kindle Paperwhite: $119. We evaluated the Paperwhite to test out some significant new features and see if it offers the most bang for your buck in a marketplace full of tablets looking to devour the Kindle.

Size, look, and feel

The e-readers Ars Technica readers use

Earlier this month, we asked Ars readers what e-readers they use. Here's how they responded.
At first glance, the Kindle Paperwhite resembles the Kindle Touch, an earlier iteration of the Kindle that has been discontinued from Amazon’s store. Amazon introduced the Touch in 2011, and the Paperwhite seems cut from the same cloth. The Paperwhite measures 6.7" x 4.6" x 0.36", and it weighs 7.5 oz (7.8 oz for the Wi-Fi and the 3G models, respectively). In terms of dimensions and weight, it is nearly identical to the Touch. The device comes in plain black, replacing the dark grey of the Touch and other E Ink models.

Enlarge/ The Kindle Paperwhite and a second-generation Kindle, side by side.

Cesar Torres

Amazon removed the poorly designed touch button from the device, and the front of the Kindle remains a sleek surface of black plastic. Three of the edges around the screen are completely smooth, and the bottom edge now features only a port for the USB charger, a battery indicator light, and the power button. The sliding button of earlier Kindle models is now gone. Instead, you now have to click down on it in order to prompt the screen to wake. Even after it wakes, you still have to swipe once to fully turn on the device. We wonder if this decision is a way to prevent the device from draining battery if a user bumps into the button by accident, or if leaving the ads up on the screen longer prompts users to buy more stuff from Amazon.

Picking up the new Kindle Paperwhite is simply a charm. Because Amazon has reduced the dimensions of the device to that of a paperback book, it’s easy to pick it up with one or two hands. In fact, using one hand is amazingly easy. I have large hands and was able to cradle the whole unit in my palm without having to stretch my fingers. Users with smaller hands may not have this luxury, but at 4.6 inches across, it will probably work for many.

The plastic on the front of the Kindle Paperwhite is a smooth, matte black, and the back of the device is covered in a rubberized plastic, also black. The back of previous versions of the Kindle were metal, and though we didn’t particularly feel it impacted the reading experience, the grip and feel of the Paperwhite lets it rest securely in your hand and acts as a deterrent to the occasional slip.

Hardware and specs

The Kindle Paperwhite is available in two options for connectivity: a Wi-Fi Model ($119) and a 3G model ($179). The device supports two-point multitouch (as compared to 10-point multi-touch on the Kindle Fire). Both models come with 2GB of internal memory.

The Wi-Fi model provides adequate connectivity for most users who simply want to download books, magazines, and newspaper subscriptions. The 3G option continues to be a great choice for users who travel a lot, since they can reach the Amazon store while out and about in more than 100 countries. The Kindle Paperwhite also features the experimental browser feature, which lets users connect to the Web. It’s decent for Internet browsing in a pinch, but it’s not going to win any awards in usability, due to the device’s performance and its virtual keyboard (which we’ll cover later on).

Enlarge/ The Kindle Paperwhite still has an "experimental" Web browser.

The battery was given a performance boost from previous models. Amazon says a single charge can last up to eight weeks, based on usage of 30 minutes per day with wireless off and with the light brightness setting at level 10. The battery held up well in our tests, both with wireless on and off. However, we noticed that the new Paperwhite’s built-in light feature really took a toll on battery life.

Unless you are constantly checking subscriptions or spending most of your time shopping instead of reading, using the device with Wi-Fi turned off will make the battery last significantly longer. However, users who enjoy the sync-to-last-page feature across other mobile devices or computers will want to keep the wireless option on at least some of the time.

The longer battery life apparently led Amazon to get rid of the wall-outlet charger that used to be included with the Kindle. The Paperwhite now comes with a single USB cable, which means you can't plug the device into a wall outlet if you're traveling or away from a computer. If you rely on your Kindle while on the road, you’re going to have to make sure you have a laptop port or a USB wall adapter handy. This change is a major inconvenience, but Amazon seems to be sending a clear message: we believe our device's battery life is good enough that you can travel often without having to worry about charging it. Whether that turns out to be true or not will depend on what kind of traveling you do, and what devices you carry with you. If you read a lot of books on a Kindle, you may not be able to afford leaving your charger cable behind.

I totally disagree with this. I love my e-reader with no backlighting. I have attempted to read on all sorts of tablets, computers, etc. I always get severe eye strain. Until tablets do not cause eye strain, I would never consider them readers at all, except for very short spans of time.

I totally disagree with this. I love my e-reader with no backlighting. I have attempted to read on all sorts of tablets, computers, etc. I always get severe eye strain. Until tablets do not cause eye strain, I would never consider them readers at all, except for very short spans of time.

You are actually exactly agreeing with that conclusion: You need an eReader due to the eyestrain that LCD-based tablets cause you. On the other hand, I can read books on a tablet just fine; doesn't mean I think your need is invalid. But I think the review nails it: eBooks are no longer unique to eReaders, but there are benefits to eReaders that are unique.

I totally disagree with this. I love my e-reader with no backlighting. I have attempted to read on all sorts of tablets, computers, etc. I always get severe eye strain. Until tablets do not cause eye strain, I would never consider them readers at all, except for very short spans of time.

That's exactly my point. You seem to have a need for a dedicated e-reader, so a Kindle makes sense. In my own personal use, that is also true. I use a Kindle in order to read as many books as I read (generally one or two a week). But for people that don't need a dedicated e-reader, there's more value in a tablet.

"However, we noticed that the new Paperwhite’s built-in light feature really took a toll on battery life."

Any chance you can refine that? I've noticed that on a tablet (Fire or iPad), I generally get 7-8 hours of reading in the Kindle App. I'd love to see at least an ESTIMATE of how long the device can be read from with the light on before the battery dies...

Thinking about getting one for a gift. Sure, we will eventually want a tablet, but I think the pros of E-Ink, battery life, eye strain reduction on long reads and weight are significant enough to warrant the use of both type of devices in the house.

I totally disagree with this. I love my e-reader with no backlighting. I have attempted to read on all sorts of tablets, computers, etc. I always get severe eye strain. Until tablets do not cause eye strain, I would never consider them readers at all, except for very short spans of time.

That's exactly my point. You seem to have a need for a dedicated e-reader, so a Kindle makes sense. In my own personal use, that is also true. I use a Kindle in order to read as many books as I read (generally one or two a week). But for people that don't need a dedicated e-reader, there's more value in a tablet.

It, however, sounds a bit obtuse. Sure, a tablet can read, but a computer, laptop, and TV could read as well. It doesn't mean they're well-suited for it.

Personally, I always thought that the e-ink displays were the main selling point and advantage. No extra things like color. Lighting only as necessary. The idea was to have all the benefits of a paper-bound book, but with none of the drawbacks.

A tablet doesn't do this.

I don't think that anyone who didn't feel the need to buy a dedicated e-reader would even consider buying a Kindle anyway. It's like you're saying "unless you have a need for a dedicated CD player, a TV can do more."

Even after it wakes, you still have to swipe once to fully turn on the device. We wonder if this decision is a way to prevent the device from draining battery if a user bumps into the button by accident, or if leaving the ads up on the screen longer prompts users to buy more stuff from Amazon.

I paid extra for the Paperwhite with no ads, and there is no swiping required after the device wakes up. I guess the swiping action is required on the ad supported model to make sure people see the ads.

"The choices in e-readers are more varied now, and the answer to the question Which is best, a Kindle or a tablet? will be dependent on what kind of book reader you are."

Way to ignore every other e-ink device in existence. This would be like if you posted "What's better for reading? An iPad or an e-ink e-reader?" and ignoring the existence of other tablets (like Android, MS, Blackberry, etc).

Amazon says a single charge can last up to eight weeks, based on usage of 30 minutes per day with wireless off and with the light brightness setting at level 10.

Seems like an artificial metric—if you're reading only 30 minutes per day, why are you buying an ebook reader?

I thought it was also a strange way to measure on Amazon's part. However, I think the real heart of these discussions is figuring out what kind of readers people are, and how much reading they like to do in paper, e-ink, screens etc. Fascinating stuff.

My daughter loves the Kindles for reading. The battery on her first gen. Kindle is starting to lose charge quickly, she has to plug in every couple of days now instead of once a week. So its a new model for Christmas. Looks like this one has some nice improvements. Not sure if it is worth the money for the 3G, no-add version, but got to keep the kid happy . To me I would rather have a "keep on me all the time reader," which is why I use my iPhone. Daughter has a purse so the Kindle can always be with her. I'm sure she will get used to touching the screen to page turn soon enough. For home reading I am thinking on the new mini-iPad, if specs are good enough. Not going to buy if not retina though.

Any chance we could get a side by side comparison of the paperwhite's screen against a keyboard's screen? I'm very interested in how the resolution and contrast compares. The numbers are nice to know but I'd like a visual comparison.

We'd need an iFixit teardown to be sure; but the discolored spots you pointed out look like bright/shadowed areas from the smoothing layer not being able to instantly average out the brightness around where the LEDs are actually injecting light. If so I wonder if extending that layer under the bezel and placing the LEDs closer to the device edge would solve it. OTOH bonding the light layer to the eink minimizes internal reflection problems and running the eink under the bezels would be wasteful.

I bought one for my wife, and should get it this week. She reads a lot in bed after I go to sleep so the light is a key feature. I paid the extra $20 for the no-ads feature.

For me I almost never read without good lighting, and I prefer the page-turn buttons to a touch screen, so I'm keeping my K3 Keyboard. I just hope Amazon keeps variety in the Kindle line and doesn't permanently reduce its options to just one e-Ink model in the future.

Really? My third gen keyboard model appears to have a plastic back. I concede that it may be rubber covered aluminum, but the way the speaker grills return to their normal shape after bending seems to indicate that it is just plastic after all. I just assumed all of them were like mine so that makes for an interesting bit of trivia.

It's hilarious that Ars's writers (Cesar and Casey off the top of my head) love to lambaste Amazon for their ads on products when Ars operates the exact same way. Look at ads or pay a price to get rid of them. Hypocrisy much?

Regarding the discoloration at the bottom of the screen: I was worried about that initially, thinking I received a broken version. I don't even really notice it anymore though, plus it's infinitely better than the result of any lamp or booklight.

The review didn't mention Paperwhite's support for WPS (wi-fi protected setup). Anyone who ever typed a 63-character WPA key into a Kindle Keyboard will appreciate this simple way of connecting to secure wireless.

I loved the Kindle Keyboard and definitely didn't need to upgrade. I bought the Paperwhite hoping that the new screen would be enough of an improvement to justify the cost of replacing a perfectly good KK. So far, I'm not disappointed. I like the screen much better, and the size reduction is very welcome as well. I never tried a Kindle Touch so can't really comment on that, but the Touch screen was closer to that of the Keyboard, so I suspect I'd have wanted to upgrade from a Touch as well.

One thing this review didn't really emphasize is the experience of e-ink versus LCD. I've got a Fire as well, but for reading, I prefer e-ink to the Fire or my laptop or desktop PC. I'll read on the Fire if I'm traveling and want to minimize the devices I'm carrying, but when I have my choice of everything, I always read on the e-ink screen.

Even in what you would consider "lit" conditions, I find the light to be useful, I never turn it off. The only time I would consider turning it off is in direct sunlight. The pattern at the bottom of the screen also isn't an issue after a little while. Much like the flash when the page changes, your mind just filters it out. Other than that slight artifacting, the light is absolutely amazing. It's by far the best light-guide implementation I have seen, there is zero light bleed at the edges, it's amazingly even, and it looks like the screen is just magically lit, with no source.

Quote:

The focused interface and E Ink display of the Kindle has pleased many book lovers because it mimics the non-reflective quality of paper.

It's actually the opposite. An eink screen is reflective, like paper, while LCD screens are emissive, because the light comes from behind the LCD, like a stained glass window.

Skimming the article I don't see any mention about the page turn buttons being completely removed from this generation of Kindles.

The page turn buttons are a deal breaker for me. No buttons, no sale.

A lot of reviews have glossed over this removed feature. A fair number of users prefer the buttons and the removal doesn't help the device.

Perhaps you should read a bit closer. This is definitely covered in the article.

A half sentence mention is hardly worth consideration.

I missed it in the article too.

I was going to ask if it might be worth upgrading, but this is pretty much a deal breaker for me

Well, I have to chime in on this. I was really concerned about the lack of page-turning buttons too, but fortunately after spending a couple of weeks with my new Paperwhite I can tell you that I do not miss them. In fact I think they would be annoying on such a small device and make it harder to hold.

And here's why going buttonless works, IMHO: In addition to the tapping method that has been mentioned (tapping on the left side of the screen goes back a page, tapping right goes forward) you can also swipe on ANY part of the page to go backward or forward, meaning you can definitely hold it with your left hand with no issue. Just swipe to the left to go back a page and swipe right to move forward. It's almost like the motion you would use to slide a paper page in a real book, except easier.

I also really like the option to read in Landscape mode so I have a wider page. It seems more comfortable for me to use landscape mode while I'm in bed laying on my side, holding it with one hand and swiping with either thumb to flip pages. I love how light it is too -- my hands don't get fatigued from one-handed reading like they do with real books.

I thought the review comparison to Barnes and Noble's competing offering was really well done. Oh wait...

Yes, and Kobo Glo was also nicely included...

No kidding... Not a single reference to the Nook Simple Touch with Glowlight or the Kobo Glo? Sure, this wasn't advertised as a comparison test, but I really suggest Ars do one. When provided with options, the consumer (i.e., me) wants help making their mind as to which is better.

Mine should be in in a few weeks (damn you Amazon!). As far as the ads go...there are always enterprising young hacker types that will find an exploit to remove this "feature". I have zero moral problem altering my hosts file or otherwise tweaking a device to my heart's content.

I'm in this same boat. I'm not saying it to be mean, or trying to find a way to write off having to buy a new device. It is a major complaint, and no one wants to be touching a screen to turn pages. I've seen and used the new Kindle and it looks great, other than having to touch the screen and get it dirty every single time. When you speed read, a clean screen is important.

I'll be keeping my current Kindle as long as I can. I really would love the lighting, but not at the cost of a dirty screen every minute.

Cesar Torres / Cesar is the Social Editor at Ars Technica. His areas of expertise are in online communities, human-computer interaction, usability, and e-reader technology. Cesar lives in New York City.